Top Court rules sniffer-dog searches are unlawful

[Koenigsegg]

People are sharing the years of their high school experiences because someone here claimed that we didn't care about kids being searched because "we" weren't being searched oursleves. We're simply pointing out the more proper fact that "we" certainly were in high school once and were subject to the exact same thing.

My bad, Vern.  I was implying Gimpy (or whoever seemed to think that experience from years ago didn't matter).  I didn't want to point fingers, so I just stated it the way I did.  Very vague I know, and I apologise.  haha
woops.

 

[midget-boyd91]

Reasonable cause, not, "You might be guilty, so we're going to search you to be sure.'

A mountie pulls over a driver for speeding and smells alcohol on the breath of the driver.. does the mountie not have the authority to make the driver take a breathalizer?
Now:
Drugs are in schools, so a drug sniffing dog is doing it's job. The dog smells something suspicious in locker x, do the mounties have the authority to search the locker, and the backpack of the person using the locker?

Midget

 

[neilinkorea]

I think you have it all wrong.  There is no need to fear if you are innocent.  They are not conducting "Random" checks, invasions of privacy or anything of the sort.  They are not just walking into Schools uninvited.  They have been invited in.  They must comply with the Law in the conduct of their duties.  If an Arrest is to be made, they must do so in compliance with the Law.  The Police are fairly hamstrung as is by the Law. 

This is not a Police State.  The arguments being put forward against the Police are all the follie of some fringe elements.

The police cannot be hamstrung by the law.  They are servants to it.  If Parliament decided to make smoking crack legal, the police would have to stand by and watch.  Just as they are subject to the charter rights of individuals when they conduct searches.  The police do what they think is right and the courts tell them if they are correct or not by ruling on the admissibility of the evidence obtained.  

I agree that the police were  invited into the school by the administration.  However, once you walk in and begin searching at random, which is the nature of what they are doing as soon as they walk through the door with a "search dog", they must assume that the evidence will be inadmissible.  This was either information gathering or bad policing.

Police are not the guardians of right and wrong or the judges of good and bad. The job of the police is to gather evidence, within the law, to aid in the crowns prosecution of suspected criminals.  They failed in this case because the evidence was not obtained withtin the law and therefore useless to the crown.

 

[40below]

I think you have it all wrong.  There is no need to fear if you are innocent.  They are not conducting "Random" checks, invasions of privacy or anything of the sort.  They are not just walking into Schools uninvited.  They have been invited in.  They must comply with the Law in the conduct of their duties.  If an Arrest is to be made, they must do so in compliance with the Law.  The Police are fairly hamstrung as is by the Law. 

This is not a Police State.  The arguments being put forward against the Police are all the follie of some fringe elements.

I have to (keep) respectfully disagreeing with you. The Supremes' point on Friday was that teens are subject to the same Charter protection as you and I. There's a fascinating quote in the decision saying the air the dogs sniff may be public property, but the backback the smell is coming out of isn't. And their point was yeah, the police have to comply with the law. And the law prohibits fishing expeditions. The law prohibits the cops showing up at your door and demanding to look around; the law prohibits them demanding you turn over the contents of the Army.ca server "just in case."

I'm not arguing it's a police state, and I have not made that point. I understand probably better than you how "hamstrung" (and I would never use that word, I would say 'Forced to go about their business legally')  the police are. And as for nothing to fear if I'm innocent - well, yeah, as a citizen of Canada, I am innocent until proven guilty by the state. They're the only ones who can deprive me of my liberty, the onus is on them to do their jobs according to the law of the land.

Here's an example, and a good one: every time when I go onto a military base, right there by every entrance in two languages by the 'Marching Troops Have Priority' sign, is a big ol' billboard stating that I and my vehicle are on a federal reserve and subject to search at any time. I don't like it, I can turn around. Nobody's forcing me to go there. Number one: those billboards aren't posted outside schools; number 2: if a kid under 16 doesn't attend school, unless by ministry-approved homeschooling protocols, it is actually a crime. There's the difference. The state can't compel you to do something while at the same time compel you to relinquish your rights as a citizen if you have done nothing wrong. That was the point of the decision.

 

[armyvern]

40below...

Charter protection does not prevent me from being held accountable for being "sniffed out" and found to be drinking and driving at a random ride check. The sniff alcohol when I roll down that window during that random RIDE check and I am then reasonably required to perform the breathalyzer as they have "reasonable grounds" to suspect I am committing an offense.

Still waiting for you to explain to me the difference here.

The kid's backpack was searched bacuse it had been "sniffed out" and reasonable suspicion then existed that he may be committing a crime.

No need for signs posted outside the schools BTW --- the kids bring home their "school rules and board policy" at the beginning of every year -- to be signed by them AND their parents and then returned to the school for inclusion onto their files. Guess what?? ZERO tolerance for drugs etc on school property is included on that. Geez, the one sent home here even detailed right out in it that searches would occur on school property and were to be expected. They are EXPECTED indeed to go to school each day, but that does NOT mean that they aren't also reasonably EXPECTED to follow the rules as well. They know the rules -- and the ones who say they don't are flat-out liars. Therefore, the reasonable expectation that kids NOT bring drugs to school is widely known to them. Give me a break already. :

 

[George Wallace]

I have to (keep) respectfully disagreeing with you. The Supremes' point on Friday was that teens are subject to the same Charter protection as you and I. There's a fascinating quote in the decision saying the air the dogs sniff may be public property, but the backback the smell is coming out of isn't. And their point was yeah, the police have to comply with the law. And the law prohibits fishing expeditions. The law prohibits the cops showing up at your door and demanding to look around; the law prohibits them demanding you turn over the contents of the Army.ca server "just in case."

And I'll respectfully disagree with you.  If I follow your logic, (using Vern's example of the RIDE Program) if a Police officer smells breath on my breath, then too bad, as the vehicle I am in is not public property.  The "air" he is smelling may be.  The road the vehicle is on, like the school, may be public property.  The Vehicle is not.  Has that warped your argument enough?

As for the Law prohibiting the Police from demanding that the contents of Army.ca server be turned over to them.  There is no Law prohibiting that.  If a Warrant was legally being executed, that is exactly what they could do.  

 

[40below]

And I'll respectfully disagree with you.  If I follow your logic, (using Vern's example of the RIDE Program) if a Police officer smells breath on my breath, then too bad, as the vehicle I am in is not public property.  The "air" he is smelling may be.  The road the vehicle is on, like the school, may be public property.  The Vehicle is not.  Has that warped your argument enough?

As for the Law prohibiting the Police from demanding that the contents of Army.ca server be turned over to them.  There is no Law prohibiting that.  If a Warrant was legally being executed, that is exactly what they could do. 

My point above, and while I may have made it badly, is that if the police do not smell alcohol on you, they have no cause to search your car any further. At that point we're at 'Thank you sir, have a good night.' I'm old enough to remember when they'd hand you an ice scraper or a goodie bag for your inconvenience back in the day. This is significantly different than our friends to the south, where you are compelled to show ID at roadside checks where the police will run you for outstanding warrants or "ask" if they might take a look in your trunk. Our Supremes explicitly outlawed such behaviour year ago; on Friday, they outlawed it in high schools too.

And as for your second point, I have made no argument about warrant searches and the herring you're tossing at me is rather red; if the cops have evidence and a spiffy piece of paper signed by a judge, or a JP if the judges were all golfing, go nuts. The defence lawyers will then argue disclosure and we're off to the races. We're arguing here specifically and solely about warranteless searches.

 

[George Wallace]

Warrantless Searches........

I side with Vern. 

 

[neilinkorea]

40below...

Charter protection does not prevent me from being held accountable for being "sniffed out" and found to be drinking and driving at a random ride check. The sniff alcohol when I roll down that window during that random RIDE check and I am then reasonably required to perform the breathalyzer as they have "reasonable grounds" to suspect I am committing an offense.

Still waiting for you to explain to me the difference here.

The kid's backpack was searched bacuse it had been "sniffed out" and reasonable suspicion then existed that he may be committing a crime.

No need for signs posted outside the schools BTW --- the kids bring home their "school rules and board policy" at the beginning of every year -- to be signed by them AND their parents and then returned to the school for inclusion onto their files. Guess what?? ZERO tolerance for drugs etc on school property is included on that. Geez, the one sent home here even detailed right out in it that searches would occur on school property and were to be expected. They are EXPECTED indeed to go to school each day, but that does NOT mean that they aren't also reasonably EXPECTED to follow the rules as well. They know the rules -- and the ones who say they don't are flat-out liars. Therefore, the reasonable expectation that kids NOT bring drugs to school is widely known to them. Give me a break already. :

By law you do not have to take a breathalyzer test if requested by police.  They can ask you, but not force you to do it.  However, once you refuse, you have comitted the crime of refusing to take a breathalyzer test.
A lot of dwi charges are thrown out each year due to the manner in which the evidence was obtained.  It is stupid to fight any police search because the police dont make the decisions about the evidence, the courts do.  But you can be sure a court will nail you for fighting a police officer or lying to them.

It comes down to public opinion.  People see dwi screening as a public service to reduce deaths due to impaired driving.  However, police men with dogs searching teenagers is a harder sell.  MADD does a much better PR job than the anti drug groups.

 

[danchapps]

I don't think bombs or guns are enough of a regular problem that there needs to be cops searching bags on a regular basis. If the cops came to search a school for a bomb or guns it wouldn't be random, it would be with reasonable cause in which case they would be free to do it, and I seriously doubt people would disagree with a search for a bomb with reasonable cause. If you want to get a point across you shouldn't use such ridiculous hyperbole. By the way, do you know the last time a student brought a bomb to a Canadian school? Because I sure as hell don't.

Bombs shouldn't have to be a regular problem for the police to search for them. I've been out of high school now for about 6 years now. When I was in high school we did have bombs. Yes, in Canada some people are stupid enough to make little home made pipe bombs and bring them to school. We had 2 actual bombs found in my district in 2 school years, not to mention the numerous "test evacuations" that were really called in bomb threats on my school. I'm all for sending in the dogs. As far as I'm concerned, a school is public property and if you don't want to be searched don't bring it to school, leave it at home and share it with your mommy and daddy, I'm sure they like a good game of puff puff pass as much as the next person. For my 2 cents anyway. Even back then I wouldn't mind a dog doing the check, but if an officer just wanted to do it to be a jerk, I'd have something else to say. If you want, I can get a back hoe to help move that rock you live under to help see reality for what it is. Dealers aren't needed in school, end of story.

 

[George Wallace]

Whoa!  We can't have that now.  Those "Bomb Sniffing" dogs would be deemed against the Law.  Those bombs in knapsacks are in private property.   :

Needless to say, this is how rediculous this argument is getting.

 

[40below]

40below...

Charter protection does not prevent me from being held accountable for being "sniffed out" and found to be drinking and driving at a random ride check. The sniff alcohol when I roll down that window during that random RIDE check and I am then reasonably required to perform the breathalyzer as they have "reasonable grounds" to suspect I am committing an offense.

Still waiting for you to explain to me the difference here.

The kid's backpack was searched bacuse it had been "sniffed out" and reasonable suspicion then existed that he may be committing a crime.

No need for signs posted outside the schools BTW --- the kids bring home their "school rules and board policy" at the beginning of every year -- to be signed by them AND their parents and then returned to the school for inclusion onto their files. Guess what?? ZERO tolerance for drugs etc on school property is included on that. Geez, the one sent home here even detailed right out in it that searches would occur on school property and were to be expected. They are EXPECTED indeed to go to school each day, but that does NOT mean that they aren't also reasonably EXPECTED to follow the rules as well. They know the rules -- and the ones who say they don't are flat-out liars. Therefore, the reasonable expectation that kids NOT bring drugs to school is widely known to them. Give me a break already. :

I'm really NOT trying to be argumentative here, but I do have some background in the area and I do have to answer this. So here's the thing: the code of conduct you reference is between three parties, only two of whom legally count: the school board, the parents and the underage minor who is not old enough to sign a contract. Not the police, not the Crown Attorneys, not the jails. If it had anything to do with them, their signatures would be on it, and when I checked my kids' COC, they aren't. Not to say they can't become involved if there's a crime committed, but until one is, they aren't. This is not about a crime being committed or mens rea, but a case suggesting tthe potential that a crime may be committed in the future  - and not a crime of violence as if a kid was caught with a loaded .38 in his backpack. You might hate drugs worse than cancer but there's a significant legal difference.

The law of the land trumps any civil agreement, regardless of the motives of the people who signed it.

 

[1feral1]

Another good reason why we should elect our judges not to have some limp wristed do gooder be appointed.

 

[40below]

Whoa!  We can't have that now.  Those "Bomb Sniffing" dogs would be deemed against the Law.  Those bombs in knapsacks are in private property.  :

Needless to say, this is how rediculous this argument is getting.

A bomb is a significant threat to public health and safety. A gram of weed in some 14-year-old's backpack may be as dangerous as a pound of Semtex studded with bolts and nails, but I'm going to need a reference.  ;D

 

[armyvern]

I'm really NOT trying to be argumentative here, but I do have some background in the area and I do have to answer this. So here's the thing: the code of conduct you reference is between three parties, only two of whom legally count: the school board, the parents and the underage minor who is not old enough to sign a contract. Not the police, not the Crown Attorneys, not the jails. If it had anything to do with them, their signatures would be on it, and when I checked my kids' COC, they aren't. Not to say they can't become involved if there's a crime committed, but until one is, they aren't. This is not about a crime being committed or mens rea, but a case suggesting tthe potential that a crime may be committed in the future  - and not a crime of violence as if a kid was caught with a loaded .38 in his backpack. You might hate drugs worse than cancer but there's a significant legal difference.

The law of the land trumps any civil agreement, regardless of the motives of the people who signed it.

Sorry. Posession/trafficing is a crime in progress -- not crime about to be committed. Possession is just as illegal as drunk driving. And, if you think trafficing etc has nothing to do with violence --- I feel sorry for you.

Now about that RIDE check which you've so obviously side-stepped (4 times) yet again. It was your own example for crying out loud.

What was the difference?

 

[George Wallace]

A bomb is a significant threat to public health and safety. A gram of weed in some 14-year-old's backpack may be as dangerous as a pound of Semtex studded with bolts and nails, but I'm going to need a reference.  ;D

Does the contents of the backpack really matter?  It appears that you have changed your mind as to that.  Which way do you want it?  Civil Liberty, Private Property, the Law are the same in both cases.  It isn't the contents of the pack in question; it is the pack itself.

 

[40below]

Sorry. Posession/trafficing is a crime in progress -- not crime about to be committed. Possession is just as illegal as drunk driving. And, if you think trafficing etc has nothing to do with violence --- I feel sorry for you.

Now about that RIDE check which you've so obviously side-stepped (4 times) yet again. It was your own example for crying out loud.

What was the difference?

OK, here we go again: if the police stop you at a RIDE check.

And you are sober.

They cannot search your car.

They cannot demand you identify yourself.

They cannot ask you to open your trunk.

They cannot ask you step out of the car.

They cannot ask to search your car.

They cannot ask you to empty your pockets.

They cannot bring in a sniffer dog and have it check your car. Only in high school until Thursday could they demand that.

I hope this has clarified what I've been sidestepping.

 

[aesop081]

A bomb is a significant threat to public health and safety. A gram of weed in some 14-year-old's backpack may be as dangerous as a pound of Semtex studded with bolts and nails, but I'm going to need a reference.  ;D

I'm a parent of 2. That 14 year old with a small amount of drugs is more of a concern to me than someone with a pound of explosives. IMHO, its more realistic that he may just well decide that hes going to try and sell some of that drug to my kids. So to answer your question, yes it is more dangerous.

Now you have your reference.

 

[40below]

Does the contents of the backpack really matter?  It appears that you have changed your mind as to that.  Which way do you want it?  Civil Liberty, Private Property, the Law are the same in both cases.  It isn't the contents of the pack in question; it is the pack itself.

Why am I arguing with the whole directing staff tonight?

OK - It is the contents of the pack in question. There is an obvious difference between a bomb and a joint. I could put down the whole legal argument, but here's the though experiment: walk into your local police station with a bag of marijuana and ask "Does anyone know how to smoke this stuff?"

Five minutes later, after you've gotten your ticket, walk in with a loaded rifle, wave it around and ask "Does anyone know how to fire this thing?" Do it in a shopping mall, a day care or a school if you don't want to go to the police HQ, I pretty much guarantee they'll come see you there. My liberty (and privacy) ends, as they say, where your fist ends and my nose begins. A gun or a bomb is inherently different from a bag of pot, and I really can't simplify the argument any more.

 

[aesop081]

Why am I arguing with the whole directing staff tonight?

Does it say "Milnet.ca staff" at the end of my post ?

No it does not. I am posting just like any other member here.